Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/303595492
CITATIONS READS
24 14,095
3 authors:
Effandi Zakaria
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
166 PUBLICATIONS 1,769 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Effandi Zakaria on 08 June 2016.
Abstract
The 21st century education demands transformation in teaching in order to produce students who
are able to meet the challenges by applying higher-order thinking skills. Malaysia is taking the in-
itiative to introduce i-Think program since 2012 to support the aspiration. This article provides
guidelines and proposes the use of thinking map in mathematics, focusing on the topic of polygon
under geometry. The recommendations of appropriate questioning for teachers to stimulate high-
er-order thinking skills of students are also discussed.
Keywords
i-Think, Thinking Map, Higher-Order Thinking Skills, Questioning
1. Introduction
The strength and progress of a country depend on the level of knowledge and skills of the people. Therefore, the
education system plays an important role in delivering the knowledge and skills to the students. Consequently,
Malaysia continues to experience a transformation in education arena from time to time.
Education Development Plan of Malaysia (PPPM) 2013-2025 has outlined six main features needed by each
student in order to meet the challenges at the global level, in line with the philosophy of national education,
namely:
• Knowledge
• Thinking skills
• Leadership skills
• Bilingual skills
How to cite this paper: Hassan, S. R., Rosli, R., & Zakaria, E. (2016). The Use of i-Think Map and Questioning to Promote
Higher-Order Thinking Skills in Mathematics. Creative Education, 7, 1069-1078. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.77111
S. R. Hassan et al.
3. Rationales
Based on the students’ achievement over the past two decades in the international assessments such as the Pro-
gram for International Students Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS), some analyses were made. The assessment takes into account a variety of cognitive skills such as ap-
plication and reasoning. These assessments are also used as the benchmark and provide a direct comparison to-
wards the quality and success in education systems of the countries that took part.
When Malaysia participated in TIMSS for the first time in 1999, the average score of Malaysian students was
above the mathematics and science international score. However, the participation in 2007 recorded that the
performance of Malaysian students was below the international average for mathematics and science, causing a
reduction in the ranking among countries. To be exact, 18% and 20% of Malaysian students failed to reach the
minimum level of skill in mathematics and science in 2007, an increment of two to four times from 7% and 5%
1070
S. R. Hassan et al.
Figure 1. Bloom’s taxonomy (left) and the revised version by Anderson and
Krathwohl (right). (Source: Schultz, 2005).
respectively in 2003. The report of TIMSS 2011 also revealed the reduction of Malaysia’s position in mathe-
matics, namely at position 16 (year 1999), 10 (year 2003), 20 (year 2007), and 26 (year 2011). Similarly, the
drop in average scores were 519 (year 1999), 508 (year 2003), 474 (year 2007) to 440 (year 2011).
The results of the PISA 2009 for Malaysia’s first participation were also discouraging because its position
was in the lowest third cluster among 74 participant countries. Countries that are considered to be less developed
than Malaysia such as Thailand and Vietnam were placed in higher rank. This achievement also placed Malaysia
under international and OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development) average achieve-
ments (OECD, 2014). PISA which was introduced by OECD is a valid platform for the country members to
evaluate their education accomplishment in certain areas. As for mathematics achievement, Malaysia was
ranked 57th by attaining 404 points, below the average of 458 points at the OECD level. In general, almost 60%
of students aged 15 years who joined PISA failed to reach the minimum level of skills in mathematics, while
44% and 43% did not reach the minimum skills in reading and in science respectively. Since the competency of
the students’ skills in these areas could not reach the international standard, the students should be exposed to
the format of PISA items and the needed skills for better achievement in the following tests.
The form of the questions tested in PISA gives more focus on problem solving that requires higher-order
thinking skills, such as analyzing, evaluating or synthesizing and not merely remembering or understanding.
Thus, it gives an indication that Malaysian education system is still weak in the aspects evaluated. Therefore, it
is a requirement for the students to be equipped with the skills. Findings from international assessments (PISA
and TIMSS) have raised the concerns since the students’ competency was very low especially on problem solv-
ing questions that require higher-order thinking skills. Hence, the i-Think program was introduced to stimulate
students’ critical and creative thinking and promote higher-order thinking skills.
The National Education Blueprint 2013-2025 plan has set a target that Malaysia needs to achieve an average
score of 500 in TIMSS by 2015 and 2025, so that it will be ranked at 1/3 of the top in the TIMSS and PISA.
Therefore, higher-order thinking skills should be applied in Malaysian education system generally and mathe-
matics education specifically because the students need to have the capability of reasoning and apply knowledge
creatively in a non-routine manner.
By the year 2016, the percentage of higher-order thinking questions will be added up to cover 80% of the total
in Primary School Achievement Test (UPSR) for year 6 students, 80% of the questions in Form 3 assessment
(PT3) for form 3 students, 75% of the total questions for core subjects and 50% for elective subjects in SPM
examination for form 5 students. This change will evade the teachers from predicting the questions that will be
asked in prior while the students are trained to think critically and apply the knowledge learned in various con-
texts. On the other hand, school-based assessments will also focus on higher-order thinking skills.
The former Malaysian education system based on examination oriented has led the teachers to apply the ap-
proach of memorizing in teaching the students. Teaching is fully prepared for the examination. Therefore, stu-
dents are able to obtain full marks for the questions that require the memorization of facts. Hence, HOTs is in-
troduced to change such practices, in line with the government’s aspiration to make Malaysia a developed coun-
1071
S. R. Hassan et al.
try by the 21st century. In addition, other purposes of HOTs being introduced are to:
1) increase the level of awareness of knowledge
2) justify the solution and discovery (more analysis, evaluate and create)
3) scientific investigation
4) learn the concept of math more effectively using HOTs
5) improve the ability of students in investigating and exploring mathematical ideas
4. Visual Tools
Research by Githua & Nyabwa (2008) showed that advance organizers improved students’ achievements which
made a contribution to know-how in its area. Students who were taught mathematics through advance organizers
performed significantly much better than those who had been taught through the traditional teaching approaches.
As for local, research by Zulnaidi & Zakaria (2010) indicated that using information mapping strategy may im-
pact students’ conceptual knowledge. There were also interactions between mathematics conceptual under-
standing and mathematics achievement. Similarly, Zaini, Mokhtar, & Nawawi (2010) found that the use of
graphic organizers had given effects on the improvement of students’ comprehension, performance and motiva-
tion in learning.
Another research by Olarewaju & Awofala (2011) revealed that mapping is an efficient strategy for helping
students to master mathematical concepts. The particular strategy can also be able to strengthen students’ mas-
tery allied with information at the higher-order thinking. The comprehensive research made by Tripto, Assaraf, &
Amit (2013) towards 11th grade students found that the strength of the concept map is within the ability to de-
scribe the thinking level of analyzing and synthesizing. From the findings listed, suggestions can be made to in-
clude concept mapping in teaching strategies in secondary schools.
Realizing that the visual tools, namely mind maps, conceptual diagrams, visual metaphors, advance organizer,
concept mapping and many other similar graphic organizers proven to give impact on the students’ understand-
ing and achievements, a visual tool named i-Think is considered to be relevant as a tool to promote students’
thinking. I-think as thinking maps are non-linguistic representations. So are graphic organizers. However, thinking
maps are different from graphic organizers as they are visual representations of thinking. Unlike graphic orga-
nizers which promote activities, thinking maps promote strategic thinking to help students to see which thinking
skills are appropriate to be used to solve problems.
1072
S. R. Hassan et al.
Figure 2. Thinking maps. Source: Hyerle (1995). Thinking maps: seeing is understanding.
Figure 3. Thinking maps. Source: Hyerle & Yeager (2007). Thinking maps: a language for learning.
1073
S. R. Hassan et al.
1074
S. R. Hassan et al.
1075
S. R. Hassan et al.
Figure 8. Suggested answers for the double bubble Map for an obtuse-angled triangle and a right-angled
triangle.
is the main shape that must be used in creating the structure of equipment but other shapes may also be used as a
support. Six kinds of triangles are given, which are acute, obtuse, right, equilateral, isosceles and scalene trian-
gles as shown in Figure 9 to be used to form the equipment. Any combinations of other appropriate shapes are
accepted.
1076
S. R. Hassan et al.
Before deciding the types of triangles to be chosen and the equipment to be created, a series of questions can
be asked to stimulate students’ thinking. This is also considering as a reinforcement of the students’ understand-
ing towards the concept of triangles.
8. Conclusion
The awareness about the importance of higher-order thinking skills in society is becoming stronger. The aware-
ness has been driven by the changes in education at the international level. These changes demand students to be
equipped with the knowledge and skills so that they can deal with the problem-solving in daily life. One of the
efforts taken is by introducing i-Think program to help stimulating higher-order thinking skills among students.
1077
S. R. Hassan et al.
Teachers play important roles in ensuring the implementation of the program to be a success. Collaboration
among teachers or schools in setting up a map-bank of i-Think maps is suggested. This effort will create a col-
lection of easy-access tool that can be reached at any time. The compilation of various applicable maps for cer-
tain mathematics topics, preferably online, is certainly a hassle-free way in sharing the resources. However, the
selection of thinking maps being used in every case should be made appropriately and teachers can stimulate
HOTs among students by providing challenging questions. The implementation of this program should be car-
ried out continuously, so that the culture of thinking becomes a habit for the students at all time. It is also rec-
ommended that other researchers conduct experimental studies using i-Think maps as an intervention to identify
its effectiveness in a real classroom setting.
References
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision
of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives:
The Classification of Educational Goals by a Committee of College and University Examiners (Handbook I: Cognitive
Domain). New York: Longmans Publishing.
Githua, B. N., & Nyabwa, R. A. (2008). Effects of Advance Organiser Strategy during Instruction on Secondary School
Students’ Mathematics Achievement in Kenya’s Nakuru District. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Edu-
cation, 6, 439-457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-006-9037-8
Hyerle, D. (1995). Thinking Maps: Seeing Is Understanding. Educational Leadership, 53, 85-89.
Hyerle, D., & Yeager, C. (2007). Thinking Maps: A Language for Learning. Cary, NC: Thinking Maps, Inc.
Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia (2013). Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2013-2025. Putrajaya: Bahagian Pen-
didikan Guru.
Wang et al. (2015). Teacher Questioning in College English Class: A Guide to Critical Thinking. Global Journal of Hu-
man-Social Science Research, 15, 11.
OECD (2014). PISA 2012 Results in Focus: What 15-Year-Olds Know and What They Can Do with What They Know.
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf
Olarewaju, A., & Awofala, A. (2011). Effect of Concept Mapping Strategy on Students’ Achievement in Junior Secondary
School. Journal of Mathematical Trends and Technology, 2, 11-16.
Schultz, L. (2005). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Lynn Schultz: Old Dominion University. Accessed on 6 September 2015.
Thomas, A., & Thorne, G. (2014). How to Increase Higher Order Thinking. Accessed on 5 March 2016.
http://www.readingrockets.org/article/34655
Tripto, J., Assaraf, O. B., & Amit, M. (2013). Mapping What They Know : Concept Maps as an Effective Tool for Assessing
Students’ Systems Thinking. American Journal of Operations Research, 2013, 245-258.
http://doi.org/10.4236/ajor.2013.31A022
Zaini, S. H., Mokhtar, S. Z., & Nawawi, M. (2010). The Effect of Graphic Organizer on Students’ Learning in School Types
of Graphic Organizer. Malaysian Journal of Educational Technology, 10, 17-23.
Zulnaidi, H., & Zakaria, E. (2010). The Effect of Information Mapping Strategy on Mathematics Conceptual Knowledge of
Junior High School Students. US-China Education Review, 7, 26-31.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED511227
1078